Britain

Britain and Syria

The vote of shame

FOR those who like to believe that Britain is largely a force for good in the world—a vigorous upholder of the rules-based international order, a country with a proud record of being willing to use its resources (whether economic or military) in defence of universal humanitarian values and a stalwart ally—the result of last night’s House of Commons vote on the principle of military action against Syria was both shocking and shaming.

Many deserve blame for the catastrophe. Some attaches to David Cameron. A parliamentary vote on a decision to go to war that is likely to entail the commitment of significant forces for a sustained period might be considered a necessity. In this instance, in which Britain would have played a very minor supporting role in a punitive action of limited duration that was most unlikely to put anyone from Britain’s armed forces in harm’s way, it was not. Far from the first time, Mr Cameron complacently misread the mood of his rebellion-prone party, a party which contains a sizeable minority that seems content to heap humiliation on his head regardless of the electoral consequences and regardless of the standing of Britain’s prime minister in the world.

Nor did Mr Cameron adequately prepare the ground for yesterday’s debate. He could and should have done more to show why any parallels between what he was proposing and Tony Blair’s use of the “dodgy dossier” to take Britain to war in Iraq were wholly and contemptibly specious. In his desire not to overcook the evidence of the Assad regime’s systematic and large-scale use of internationally-banned nerve agents, he admitted that there was not “100% proof”. He could, however, have shown that the case against Mr Assad was beyond all reasonable doubt—the standard required for a conviction in a court of law. It was also a mistake to allow the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, to wind the debate up rather than his foreign secretary, William Hague. Arguments fall apart in Mr Clegg’s hands like sodden cardboard, whereas Mr Hague is probably Westminster’s best debater. It is also not clear why he threw the towel in so completely and immediately after the votes had been counted. There was still time and opportunity to change minds before a second vote which was scheduled for early next week.

But if Mr Cameron got some things wrong, at least he was trying to do the right thing: support Britain’s most important ally in an effort to show an evil dictator that he cannot continue to use the vilest weapons against his own people with utter impunity. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, by contrast, did not seem to know what he was doing other than show he was not Tony Blair, which most people had already realised. Mr Miliband’s claim to require more evidence and to allow the UN weapons inspectors to complete their report, may have sounded reasonable to many people, but in reality was nothing more than a weaselly attempt to avoid taking sides either for or against military action. Given his supreme distaste for military intervention in Syria, nobody would be happier than Barack Obama if holes could easily be picked in the evidence. Mr Miliband’s depiction of Mr Cameron (and implicitly, Mr Obama) rushing to war without adhering to proper process was embarrassingly wide of the mark. Sadly, not one of his MPs had the guts to get up and say so (indeed some found his position distastefully hawkish).

Mr Miliband at least has the excuse of being leader of the opposition. He would have been right to question the government closely on the purpose and possible consequences of military action. He would also have been entitled to have withheld support if the government’s intended course of action appeared reckless or illegal, but he made the case for neither. Those who deserve the greatest opprobrium are the 30 Tory MPs who voted against their prime minister and a still larger group (including, it is said, more than one cabinet minister) who signalled only reluctant support for Mr Cameron. Increasingly, there is a tendency within the Conservative Party that takes such a narrow, Poujadist (or should that be Farageist?) view of national interest that it behaves as if Britain should cease to have any serious engagement with the outside world. It was no coincidence that some of the rebels are also among the party’s most Europhobic headbangers. They seem to care as little for the Atlantic partnership and NATO as they do for the European Union. They claim to be representing popular opinion, which is indeed weary of foreign wars and sceptical about the reasons for Britain’s involvement in them. But not even populist Tories should want foreign policy to be determined by opinion polls.

The only people who should celebrate yesterday’s vote are Bashar Assad and Vladimir Putin. Britain’s failure to stand by its allies and stand up to tyranny has diminished it in the eyes of the world.

This post all too accurately follows the Ashdown view of recent events.

As such, it refuses to place the attack in the context of a long civil war that has already claimed 100,000 casualties. It refuses to consider what if any effect on Assad a "limited" strike would have.

But much worse, it elides the strong possibility that the US will attempt to overthrow the Syrian regime, and make even more of a mess in the Middle East. If he survives execution, Assad will end up in the Hague whether we throw in some cruise missiles or not.

I do not doubt that Assad used chemical weapons. But the correct initial way forward is through the UN. Wait for the inspectors report then force a vote in the Security Council and when as expected Russia (and maybe China) veto it, then admit what we have known all along - that the UN is dysfunctional and useless (how cannot it be so when the likes of Mugabe's Zimbabwe sit on UN Human Rights bodies) and start to build a coalition outside the UN.

Well, like it or not, pathetic peaceniks, the bombs are surely and helpfully coming. Britain would provide good help but most of the real work will be carried out by America anyway, so it is no biggie. I belive the gruesome images of dead children were not shocking enough to move the British commons. That is fine. Double standards are not only to be found in the US...

Cameron proves himself, again, a well meaning bumble dick. The Parliamentary vote was good for democracy. Politically, Cameron proves himself time and again as an unskilled buffoon. Of course, who in the Conservatives is any better?

Maybe the narcissistic Obama should not have sent the "Churchill" bust back to England. Winston Churchill would not be more concerned about how he is perceived and send out a surrogate to discuss US intentions. Would you follow him?

The real question is why Syria and not Iran? Why was the House of Commons debating Syria and not Iran? The Iranian nuclear threat is orders of magnitude more dangerous that the Syrian chemical one. The US and Britain are concentrating on the wrong country.

I'd been wondering what God's will was but obviously you know so could you explain it a bit more clearly. Could you also explain what God's will is regarding the Syrian situation. It could save us a lot of wasted time thinking for ourselves.

I agree that these weapons should be removed, but I do not trust these guys more than I trust Assad, and certainly not B. Netanyahu whom got involved in American politics during the presidential election.

The French have no backbone, they will give up at any sign of real fighting. They are happy to join conflicts but let others do the work. The world should be happy we defeated them at Waterloo or you would all be eating cheese and giving up at any sign of a fight. The British should focus on the Falklands/Gibraltar etc what matters to the UK!

Britain has intervened in other peoples messes more than any other power in the history of the world, we were doing so before the US even existed, it was John Churchill who led the allies of Europe against Louis XIV's dreams of conquest. The British emprie was often expanded against British interests, Britain's power was based on capitalism not territory. So the picture you paint is false. But what thanks do we get for all the interventions we do, we created the home for the jews in Israel, and what thanks did we get? King David's hotel. Time for Britain to look out for its own interests, we help the US disproportionally than any other nation, and don't get thanks for it. Why don't naitons like Germany, Canada take a lead role supporting the US? why should it always be Britain

"You just did what Neville Chamberlain did in 1938 witch Tchecoslovakia nothing"
`
I didn't notice the British parading any agreement with Assad though. Was there one?
`
Seems the Parliament used common sense and slowed policy down.

You can blame Blair and his lies for the reluctance. I think there quiet rightly a reluctance to support such action due to the past mistakes and lies that politicains such as Blair have tainted our democracy with. The evidence is not "beyond reasonable doubt" and as such even though I am a great supporter of Britain acting and supporting good causes. In this case I think we have done the right thing and democracy has proved successful. I suggest we speed up the findings of the UN inspectors and then have a further review. I am alittle lost as to why they take so long to find any specific findings!!

I expect that if there is no effective outside intervention and it is all go for chemical weapons in the Middle East, the Sunnis will start using their (considerable) chemical store. And - in the way of things - the subsequent target after the Shia, will be the Russians in Chechnya. Maybe the nations of the world all have to learn the hard way that there is no alternative to an agreed rule of law. Right now the Russians care more about squashing Sunni extremism than controlling the methods used. It is a very short term approach and if the US shrugs off its policeman role - as they show every sign of doing since they no longer depend so much on the ME for oil - the Russians will be left with the consequences of their actions. I think the British have decided that the world has no longer to be protected from these lessons - or at least that it is futile to try.

To be fair, the British didn't set the "red line", Obama did. Now, should Obama fail to act it will have grave consequences on our (US) foreign policy as we will be perceived as a paper tiger. The British made no decree that I'm aware of, so shouldn't lose credibility.

On the other hand, as this article points out, it's not like the Brits were in for anything more than a few bombing runs anyway so a lot of the "bully for the Parliament" commenters seem to have missed the point.

The UK will not fight against a well armed enemy fighting for their country. They learned that in Afghanistan in the 1800s. Besides, there is no oil and those are poor countries no one cares about. The UK will always have the US to defend her, so your predictions of doom will remain a fantasy.

Maybe even those on the right of British politics are getting disillusioned with the US' gouging of British companies (BP), and extortion and intimidation of European banks and bankers. Perhaps they no longer feel over-friendly to our transatlantic 'partners'.
They might even start to cosy up to their European neighbours, which would be an interesting side-effect, and probably welcome in Washington.